Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #61 *ARREST*

[Momofthreeboys]

but the comment about information that is likely not admissible as evidence (think, hearsay etc) gives me some pause.

Yes. They said it was a highly circumstantial case so I expected a lot of the “stuff” that gets discussed might not make it to trial. I hope they have plenty of hard evidence mixed into those pages or the prosecution risks getting that case dismissed before it begins.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I'm still not convinced it will remain sealed until the end of August. The media are going to appeal in the public interest/right to know. So we shall see if protecting the daughters and potential witnesses weighs more heavily than that. I say, "Stay tuned." JMHO

Here is an Indiana case where release of an AA was fought for by the local newspaper. BBM
"It's a fundamental principle of our society that someone cannot be detained and kept in the dark about why without the government saying 'here is the information against you.' The presumption is that these documents are public record. The very narrow exception is that if you hold a hearing and say here is why this record needs to be sealed," said Pat Shoulders, an attorney representing the Evansville Courier & Press.

"It's a bad precedent."

Article link:
Newspaper files motion to unseal details in Rathgeber killing

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Colorado needs a law that substantially increases the sentence when the murderer uses the remoteness and/or vast rugged terrain of that beautiful state to secret a body, thus increasing the substantial burden of the State in gathering evidence to prove the victim has died and that criminality was involved. Something like for every month the body remains hidden beyond the disappearance date, another 5 years added to the sentence if there is a conviction in the victim's murder.

Because there are just too many cases... and there is too great an incentive for the murderer to keep his mouth shut in Colorado.

And here we have the Court giving substantial deference to not just the defendant, but also those close to the defendant (family members AND witnesses), so the secrecy first initiated by SM's alleged murderer continues for another 3 months while the victim's body (her incapacitated body, according to the guardianship petition) continues to deteriorate, assuming her murderer left anything to deteriorate.

Yes the system works that way, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But adding years to a life sentence without parole is what it is. More than life is an anecdote for the media.

 

[Ontario Mom]

This is reminding me of the Kelsey Berreth case. We had to wait until after the preliminary hearing to see the AA.

I have a feeling this AA will be just as damning here. I think there will be several witnesses that will speak very negatively of Barry, and his defense doesn’t want any of that out there to taint a jury pool. JMO.

And, depending on who these witnesses are, and what they have to say, also potentially taint the opinions of the daughters. I only mention this because they're mentioned in the motion, specifically, to protect them from the awful things that will be said about their dad. I can only imagine that'd be even harder if it's from people they know and trust (and I suspect it might be). Even though BM and his attorneys already have the AA, the girls are still technically "the public" right now and wouldn't have access to the AA unless their dad gave them a copy. And there's no way he will (jmo). I think now that he knows what's been said by whom, he wants more time now to address what he knows they're going to hear, and convince them none of it's true.

What a nightmare he created for this family

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Here is an Indiana case where release of an AA was fought for by the local newspaper. BBM
"It's a fundamental principle of our society that someone cannot be detained and kept in the dark about why without the government saying 'here is the information against you.' The presumption is that these documents are public record. The very narrow exception is that if you hold a hearing and say here is why this record needs to be sealed," said Pat Shoulders, an attorney representing the Evansville Courier & Press.

"It's a bad precedent."

Article link:
Newspaper files motion to unseal details in Rathgeber killing

The records will be released after he is bound over for trial. Until that point he is only charged. No ones rights are being infringed as to access. Now if the evidence is enough to bind him over for trial and the judge does not release for me that is a different situation.

 

[Cindizzi]

The Consortium representing the Press re-tweeted LS tweet about today’s Order with this note:

https://twitter.com/cofoic/status/1400943203042295809?s=21

One of the first judicial orders under new Rule of Criminal Procedure 55.1, which sets procedural and substantive standards for when a Colorado trial judge may suppress or seal judicial records in criminal cases. The new rule went into effect May 10.

 

[justtrish]

I wonder if being a no body crime at this point has anything to do with it. They can guess and paint a story based on what they have found, but until they have her body and/or a confession, it might be that their case in built on witnesses or statements made by people (maybe even the daughters) and having the media and anyone else who reads it knowing that and possibly contacting them would be further victimizing them. I do believe someone in this case is talking similar to the Fraze case. I think someone has given statements or helped in a way they might not even realize. Releasing the AA now could tip that person off that their info has helped. I could be way off and maybe they finally just had enough tiny pieces places that they could see the bigger picture clear enough to charge him.

 

[Gigi3]

Here is an Indiana case where release of an AA was fought for by the local newspaper. BBM
"It's a fundamental principle of our society that someone cannot be detained and kept in the dark about why without the government saying 'here is the information against you.' The presumption is that these documents are public record. The very narrow exception is that if you hold a hearing and say here is why this record needs to be sealed," said Pat Shoulders, an attorney representing the Evansville Courier & Press.

"It's a bad precedent."

Article link:
Newspaper files motion to unseal details in Rathgeber killing

I think it should be released, but I can understand why the court doesn’t want it out just yet.

I know I keep referring to the Berreth case, but it was also in Colorado and this looks like it’s following the same pattern.

I’m sure some of the things in the AA will never make it to court, BUT I’m of the belief that the things that do will be damning enough that it won’t matter. Let’s not forget that Barry also tried to influence people in authority. That’s just the beginning, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Yes the system works that way, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But adding years to a life sentence without parole is what it is. More than life is an anecdote for the media.

Indeed. Release of the AA needs to be litigated and the judge's reasoning should be challenged in open court. Let's at least hear the judge's decision fairly challenged! I hope this happens soon. MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

Indeed. Release of the AA needs to be litigated and the judge's reasoning should be challenged in open court. Let's at least hear the judge's decision fairly challenged! I hope this happens soon. MOO

I guess the media's attorneys will review the judge's decision and see if it is worth taking to court and challenging. (It likely is. Lots of money to be made to have the Affidavit details published in their publications. IMO)

I also guess that until BM is bound over for trial, it could be very prejudicial for all of Chaffee County (potential jurors) to read the details in the AA ... and perhaps deeply pre-form their secret opinions, without BM being yet bound over for trial based on what has been determined to be allowable evidence.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

The records will be released after he is bound over for trial. Until that point he is only charged. No ones rights are being infringed as to access. Now if the evidence is enough to bind him over for trial and the judge does not release for me that is a different situation.

But isn't the AA "the evidence" or am I missing something here? While I advocate strongly for its release, if sealed, what else do we have to rely on? Rights to the information must be weighed further before the defendant can truly assert harm from this release of evidence. It is not straightforward, IMHO. The interests of the public vs. the defendant must be "weighed" in a hearing, IMHO. But I am open to correction and other opinions.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I guess the media's attorneys will review the judge's decision and see if it is worth taking to court and challenging. (It likely is. Lots of money to be made to have the Affidavit details published in their publications. IMO)

I also guess that until BM is bound over for trial, it could be very prejudicial for all of Chaffee County (potential jurors) to read the details in the AA ... and perhaps deeply pre-form their secret opinions, without BM being yet bound over for trial based on what has been determined to be allowable evidence.

May I kindly submit, that money is not the primary motivation of the media though they may profit. Our American system of government tends to favor the public's right to know when the public coffers are funding the prosecution. And jury voir dire will be used to check the fair mindedness of each potential juror. Withholding the AA is no guarantee of an untainted jury pool.

 

[Gigi3]

Another thought, we probably have witnesses just now coming forward due to Barry finally being locked up. These witnesses could be in fear for their lives if the AA is released early.

The witnesses in the Berreth case certainly had something to fear, since Frazee was actually making a hit list while in jail. I’m sure Barry made it seem to some that he has power, and LE in his back pocket. That could be where the influencing comes from. JMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

May I kindly submit, that money is not the primary motivation of the media though they may profit. Our American system of government tends to favor the public's right to know when the public coffers are funding the prosecution. And jury voir dire will be used to check the fair mindedness of each potential juror. Withholding the AA is no guarantee of an untainted jury pool.

Perhaps not .. or perhaps we like to think that it is not the primary consideration. I think it ranks way up there.

The reason that I think this is because the media very much picks and chooses which cases it fights for publication rights, and which cases it doesn't. IMO

My opinion is not limited to the US. But this is a subject for another forum, another place and time, perhaps.
Because it has implications of what person has been murdered, how much the case appeals to the public, etc. etc.

 

[Diddian]

Yes,at bottom of Page 4 it mentions witness credibility.

Makes me absolutely furious that the judge sees fit to seal the arrest affidavit and redact a portion of this order, yet has no problem releasing that part about witness credibility.

Imagine yourself a witness who has something at risk here and reading that.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Perhaps not .. or perhaps we like to think that it is not the primary consideration. I think it ranks way up there.

The reason that I think this is because the media very much picks and chooses which cases it fights for publication rights, and which cases it doesn't. IMO

My opinion is not limited to the US. But this is a subject for another forum, another place and time, perhaps.
Because it has implications of what person has been murdered, how much the case appeals to the public, etc. etc.

But may I also point out that in the U.S. only the press can petition the court for release of the AA. A regular citizen cannot. The 1st amendment has to be advocated for and protected by those it was written for. In the case of release of information from courts, whether by law or by precedent, that is the press/media organizations. IMHO

 

[SouthAussie]

But may I also point out that in the U.S. only the press can petition the court for release of the AA. A regular citizen cannot. The 1st amendment has to be advocated for and protected by those it was written for. In the case of release of information from courts, whether by law or by precedent, that is the press/media organizations. IMHO

Same in Australia. And in other western countries. This is not a matter that is limited to the US ... 'the public's right to know'.
Yet we only hear a lot about certain cases.

Charter of Press Freedom - Australian Press Council

 

[MsBetsy]

And, depending on who these witnesses are, and what they have to say, also potentially taint the opinions of the daughters. I only mention this because they're mentioned in the motion, specifically, to protect them from the awful things that will be said about their dad. I can only imagine that'd be even harder if it's from people they know and trust (and I suspect it might be). Even though BM and his attorneys already have the AA, the girls are still technically "the public" right now and wouldn't have access to the AA unless their dad gave them a copy. And there's no way he will (jmo). I think now that he knows what's been said by whom, he wants more time now to address what he knows they're going to hear, and convince them none of it's true.

What a nightmare he created for this family

Yes, I can understand why the judge would want to allow the girls to have the summer to find out all the details and process the information. Salida is a small town. Imagine being a teenager and knowing that everyone knows your father murdered your mother. Even as an adult, I'd want to hide in my house.

I guess it's just a matter of delaying the inevitable. Barry has some explaining to do.

 

[Spartygirl]

Thanks for posting @Cindizzi.
Very disappointed. Again, protecting the daughters is mentioned and about giving them time, to read/process? There have been and are children in a lot of murder cases affected and again, can’t recall this being mentioned/considered in any of the previous Spousal/Partner murder cases I’ve followed. I’m thinking maybe, could be that the daughters provided witness testimony.

There must be lots of witness testimony that paints BM in a negative light and very damning for BM. Also, likely concerned about potential tainting of jury pool and ensuring BM receives a fair trial.

So we have to wait another 3 months,ugh.
Gonna be a long summer.

IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

I just worry that the daughter's testimonies could be in favor of BM and not against.
Either way, they are being protected in the AA and I agree, I dont ever remember seeing that before, at least in any case I have followed.
JMO

 

[DizzyB]

Who writes the AA? I have concerns about the unnecessary information included, that the Judge has ruled not relevant to probable cause and possibly not admissible at trial. Isn’t the AA about probable cause? I don’t want Barry’s attorneys to have anything that they can use to get him off on a technicality. Would an AA be written this way for any particular purpose or was the writer unskilled in the process?